|
"I agree with the consensus.
No matter what arguments may be brought forward to the contrary, identifying the
nominating source will only serve to add a decision point that I don't think anyone
can rightly think is a valid reason to approve or disprove. And given the "rebel"
nature of many of us "old timers" on the Web, being identified as self-nominated
could actually be a benefit! Regardless, the primary focus should be what each
nominee brings to the table, not how they got there!" You may be right about us
"old timers" actually deriving a benefit from labeling! :) If the playing field
is to be level, however, the "self nominated" should have as much time as the board
nominated AND the requirements should be identical and published. If this does
not occur, the entire election is tainted, IMO, and should be postponed until there
is a true consensus of members at large. After all, the members at large are
the most effected by anything ICANN does.
|
|
|